I thought about that, but frankly, I'm not sure that any consistent style difference between those two terms ("Fume" = "oaky?") ever really emerged. It always seemed to me like dealer's choice, or maybe marketer's choice.

French winemakers will from now on be able to label their wines using the term Shiraz for wines made from the Syrah grape. The National Interprofessionnel des Vins has confirmed that the term Shiraz can be used as a synonym for Syrah on French wine labels. The move has been prompted by the confusion amongst many UK consumers, who are unaware that Syrah and Shiraz is the same grape. Last year a major UK supermarket labelled a French wine as Shiraz before (following the French Government's request) changing the label was changed to Syrah. The same wine with the Shiraz label sold twice as much as the one labelled as Syrah.

Bob R, this is all very interesting/informative!! When will we be seeing some tasting notes!!!!!
Beats me where you find all this stuff. Gonna nominate you for Forumite of the Year!!!!!!! Now there`s a good idea for december, have to think of a category for Paul B though. Maybe the most informative home winemaker!!???

Paul B. wrote:Or, to use Mike B.'s great phrase, it's all about "aggressive mediocrity".

It seems that more and more products get marketed with the goal of aggressive mediocrity nowadays. If that's a true reflection of what most people actually aspire to, then it's really kind of sad when you think about it.

I suppose it depends on ones goals.

The way I see it, there are two major goals in winemaking. One is to make the best possible wine. Another is to make as much money as possible. To a certain extent, those goals are mutually exclusive. "Agressive mediocrity" makes a lot of money, which is not an inherently bad thing.

You are much too kind, Bob. I'm somewhat embarrassed that I'm so much out of touch with the Syrah/Shiraz name shift -- one of my favorite wines in both basic styles, really, but culture changed without my knowing it.

You've added so much enthusiasm and so many great ideas -- deserve any titles that are given out.

You are much too kind, Bob. I'm somewhat embarrassed that I'm so much out of touch with the Syrah/Shiraz name shift -- one of my favorite wines in both basic styles, really, but culture changed without my knowing it.

You've added so much enthusiasm and so many great ideas -- deserve any titles that are given out.

Thanks again, Bob

Bob, I guess after all the Christmas planning and home/barn renos are over your end, we should pick a syrah and a shiraz and do an Open Mike!!! Picking the same wines of course. You game?!!

Isaac wrote:The way I see it, there are two major goals in winemaking. One is to make the best possible wine. Another is to make as much money as possible. To a certain extent, those goals are mutually exclusive. "Agressive mediocrity" makes a lot of money, which is not an inherently bad thing.

In support of the argument above, consider the case of Fred Franzia. His Charles Shaw products are mediocre ... when they are at their best. Yet he seems to be raking in the dough.

Then consider the case of Robert Mondavi. He was an aggressive marketer and a fanatic about making quality wines. In doing so, he made a lot of money. Then he began expanding his empire, branching out into mediocre products. Afterward, they steadily began losing market share until finally they lost their business altogether.

Bob Ross wrote:Sure. I'll be back drinking wine in early December -- let's do it then, ok?

I'm interested in seeing if all the great Syrahs I've got in the cellar taste the same now that I know they are better known as "Shiraz".

Great, we will have to think of a couple of wines that are available in both markets/cellars. The other alternative is that we each pick our own 2 wines and go from there. It will be an interesting exercise either way. The choice of which wines might be of interest to some, should post question here later this month. We will get lots of advice!!!

Isaac wrote:The way I see it, there are two major goals in winemaking. One is to make the best possible wine. Another is to make as much money as possible. To a certain extent, those goals are mutually exclusive. "Agressive mediocrity" makes a lot of money, which is not an inherently bad thing.

In support of the argument above, consider the case of Fred Franzia. His Charles Shaw products are mediocre ... when they are at their best. Yet he seems to be raking in the dough.

Then consider the case of Robert Mondavi. He was an aggressive marketer and a fanatic about making quality wines. In doing so, he made a lot of money. Then he began expanding his empire, branching out into mediocre products. Afterward, they steadily began losing market share until finally they lost their business altogether.

-- Clark

Gallo would be another operation to try to pin down regarding the argument that mediocrity makes money and dedicated quality does not--mediocrity certainly made them money, but they also produce higher level wines. I don't know if those wines make money for them. Hoke, do you know?